linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/12] btrfs: add zstd compression level support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 5 Feb 2019 17:27:34 +0100
From:   David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
To:     Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>
Cc:     David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
        Omar Sandoval <osandov@...ndov.com>,
        Nick Terrell <terrelln@...com>,
        Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>, kernel-team@...com,
        linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/12] btrfs: add zstd compression level support

On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 11:03:02AM -0500, Dennis Zhou wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 03:57:53PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 03:19:56PM -0500, Dennis Zhou wrote:
> > > Hi everyone,
> > > 
> > > V2 had only a handful of changes outside of minor feedback.
> > > 0001:
> > > - use functions over macros
> > > 0003:
> > > - BTRFS_NR_WORKSPACE_MANAGERS is added instead of overriding
> > >   BTRFS_COMPRESS_TYPES
> > > 0011 (new):
> > > - address monotonic memory requirement for zstd workspaces
> > > 0012:
> > > - increase reclaim timer to 307s from 67s
> > > - move from keeping track of time in ns to jiffies
> > > - remove timer in cleanup code
> > > - use min_t() instead of if statements in .set_level()
> > > - add header text to describe how workspaces are managed
> > > - nofs_flag type -> unsigned long to unsigned int
> > 
> > Something is wrong, the patchset on top of 5.0-rc5 hangs in test
> > btrfs/007, without a stacktrace. V1 was fine and I double checked that
> > rc5 itself is fine.
> 
> Hmmm, well that's awkward. I ran xfstests and that test passed on my
> machine. I'll figure out the delta and submit a v3. Thanks David!

It failed on a VM and 2 other physical machines, so it's not somethig
related to the testing setup.